<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="1" > preface:</h1>
"Then, my dear Secretary of State, what else is needed to establish capitalist imperialism?"
Blinken replied: "Capitalist imperialism can no longer be established... Cheap fried chicken, huge oven, 24-hour air conditioner, large-displacement car with oil burning, 600,000 Gaohua, 80 million red necks, in short, a MEGA country is needed to complete him. But this great power no longer exists. “
The fiasco of the United States in Afghanistan, not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq and in Vietnam, is to blame Trotsky. It sounds magical, but all the facts I have told can be verified.
Tell a story. The story begins with owen Kristol as a man.
Owen Christall was the godfather of neoconservatism.
Owen Christor was born on January 20, 1920 in Brooklyn, New York, where he was a European Jewish immigrant who attended the City University of New York, an interesting university that was a product of 19th-century idealism in the United States, and its founder, Dr. Webster, served as its first president after the school was inaugurated in 1849, Dr. Webster said
What is to be tried is whether the children of the people, the children of the whole people, can be educated; whether an institution of the highest level can succeed in being controlled by the will of the people, not by a privileged few.
It is also because of this that the City University of New York was more popular from the beginning, it was a public university, in the era when liberalism in the United States was rampant, and the free economy and private economy were extremely advocated, the City University of New York provided a perfect holy place for countless children of the working class, especially the children of the Jewish working class, known as the Harvard of the poor, the Harvard of the proletariat, which is very different from Columbia University in the same city, And Columbia University can only afford the children of rich families.
During the Spanish Civil War, many alumni of the City University of New York voluntarily participated in the war, 13 alumni died, and the names of these people can still be found on the monument on the second floor of the NAC building of the City University of New York.
From the 1930s to the 1950s, the political activism of the City University of New York was fully demonstrated, and the cafeteria of the City University of New York, especially the Arkiv cafeteria No. 1, was the only place in the world where fair debates could be held between Trotskyists and Stalinists, and Kristol's period of study at the university coincided with 1936 and 1940, when the university's political leanings were at its most intense.
Due to the unique appeal of Trotskyism, and the fact that Trotsky was also Jewish, it is not surprising that Kristol became a fan of Trotsky, and in fact most of the big men who founded neoconservatism were Trotskyists.
In addition to Kristol, Daniel Bell, who claimed to be "one of the top intellectuals in postwar America," a neoconservative tycoon and Jewish immigrant, studied at the City University of New York and wrote the famous "The End of Ideology," "The Coming of a Post-Industrial Society," and "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism."
Nathan Glaser, a neoconservative tycoon and Jewish immigrant, attended the City University of New York.
Owen Howe, a Trotskyist, Jewish immigrant, attended The City University of New York.
These four people were the heroes of the City University of New York at that time.
People are a product of the environment, and from the perspective of the foundation of the establishment of the City University of New York, it is almost inevitable to cultivate a group of Trotsky fans.
It is particularly interesting that Jews seem to be particularly fond of politics and are extremely prone to radicalism, from the Soviet Union to the United States, where a large number of Jews occupied the top at the beginning of the cpustoire, and American politics is still active today with a large number of Jewish political forces, such as Sanders.
So the question is, how did a group of Trotskyists become later neoconservative?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="196" > the metamorphosis of the sixties</h1>
When a political idea rises, it takes many years to finally become a policy, and the principle is simple: the people who accept new political ideas are often young people, and it takes time for young people to climb to the top of politics, and neoconservatism is no exception.
The sixties were a turbulent era in the United States, first the young and energetic Kennedy defeated the gloomy Nixon, elected the 35th president of the United States, Kennedy began to imitate Roosevelt's Keynesian economic policies after taking office, raised the minimum wage, implemented the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, gave black people in Trembiad the right to elect presidents, proposed 24 amendments, prohibited the Federal Congress or any state from restricting their right to vote according to whether citizens pay taxes or not, these policies are conducive to alleviating racial contradictions.
After the assassination of Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson came to power, continued to promote the civil rights movement, has signed three civil rights bills, banned racial segregation, abolished cultural tests, most of the Cultural Circles in the American intellectual circles are liberals, liberals are extremely satisfied with these policies, believe that the injustice in the United States in the past was caused by wrong policies, once the correct policies are introduced, it can fundamentally solve the problems facing the United States.
From the mid-sixties to the seventies, the entire U.S. economy stagnated, and the U.S. government became increasingly unable to meet the growing demands of the civil rights movement, two landmark events: the failure of reforms in the "Great Society" and the Vietnam War disillusioning many liberals.
In the seventies, in the period of Soviet offensive and American defense, the quagmire of the Us economy, superimposed on the arms race was surpassed by the Soviet Union, the nationalist and socialist movements in the Third World, the non-aligned countries movement and the establishment of the Group of 77 completely divided liberal intellectuals.
Some liberal intellectuals defended the Third World Movement and the Soviet Union, while attacking the U.S. government's foreign containment strategy, while other liberal intellectuals, that is, the disillusioned liberal intellectuals who had been disillusioned before, were shocked by the seriousness of the matter, believing that the outcome of the current Third World revolutionary movement was most likely contrary to the original intention, believing that the United States must regain its international strategic superiority and the high ground of international morality, emphasizing that Soviet expansion was the root of the threat and that the United States must defend its values.
The civil rights movement also brought with it another problem: the discord between blacks and Jews. The civil rights movement itself was a strong advocate for black rights, but the problem was that Jews were usually richer in the United States, usually merchants or landlords, while blacks hated this group of people and regarded them as exploiting classes, and there were a large number of Jewish shops in the civil rights movement that were destroyed, black students criticizing Jewish teachers and the like, and it happened that a large number of liberal intellectuals were Jewish, which caused their panic.
Twenty years ago, or even ten years ago, who would have thought that in the United States, we would live to see this day: a government agency that asked colleges and universities to conduct racial surveys of their faculties to survey the proportion of Indo-Europeans (traditionally this is just another term for "Aryans")? Who would have predicted that this would happen with little public controversy and strong support from a free society? How did this wonderful situation happen?
------- Cristal, 1974, Fortune Magazine
At that time, American conservatism was in a state of distress, World War II leader Roosevelt was in power for too long, re-elected as president for four consecutive terms, Roosevelt advocated liberalism, while Roosevelt pursued Keynesian policy, a generation of Americans grew up under the influence of Roosevelt, this generation of Americans grew up to occupy the American intellectual, cultural, think tanks, etc., conservatism has always been in a state of suppression, and the division of liberal intellectuals gave them a perfect opportunity. Conservatives and divided liberals formed a strange combination: neoconservatism
For this question, see what I wrote:
Talk about the evolution and development of American think tanks, and think about the recent NGO problem
And the above mentioned Kristol is one of them, in addition to him, including his alumni Daniel Bell, Nathan Glaser, as well as Lipsett, Michael Novak, Richard Pipes, and later the famous Huntington, etc., and among all of them, Kristol is especially the best of them.
These neoconservatives are knowledgeable, are well-known media people or scholars, some are also senior administrators, in the 1974 "70 most prestigious intellectuals in the United States" selection, neoconservatives accounted for a quarter, Dennis Bell even ranked in the top ten, relative to the traditional conservatives, this group of intellectuals who split from the liberals have more intellectual advantages, better understand the discourse of liberals, they attach great importance to the media's shaping role in public opinion, with the help of the media to expand their momentum, They reinvented conservatism entirely.
Neoconservatives founded a large number of periodicals, such as the Review, The Public Interest, The National Interest, World Affairs, The New Republic, And Banner Weekly, and some well-known publications such as Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Washington Journal, National Review, Forbes, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. They also infiltrated them.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="197" > shaping the right to speak</h1>
As neoconservatives who knew the liberals very well, and many of whom were Trotsky fans, had a strong ideological advantage and a public opinion advantage in both the liberals and the Soviet Union: they knew them very well, they just didn't believe it.
The so-called political ideology and political factions are nothing more than different solutions to social problems, and since neither of them can persuade each other, it is inevitable that there will be a life-and-death battle in politics, public opinion, and even military, and within the United States, public opinion is obviously more important.
From social to religious thought, from political theory to economic theory, neoconservatives are constantly updating their arsenals, dazzling traditional conservatives: How can they play like this?
The propaganda of the Laffer curve is really a major initiative of the neoconservatives, and it is not surprising that a political propaganda can be written into China's economics textbooks?
This is the Laffer curve in economics textbooks.
The Laffer curve is very easy to understand, in plain words:
If the tax rate is zero, it is clear that the government will not collect a dime of tax.
If the tax rate is 100%, no one will do business at this time, and the government will still not receive a dime of tax.
Then draw a curve between 0 and 100%, and on the left side of the curve, the government will raise the tax rate to increase the tax revenue.
On the right side of the curve, it means that the tax rate is already too high, and increasing the tax rate will only hit business activities hard, but it will lead to a reduction in tax revenue, so it should be reduced.
And the X% point is the optimal tax rate.
The Laffer curve is so simple and easy to understand that almost everyone knows that the basis of the supply-side school is the Laffer curve, the supply-side school demands tax cuts, the reduction of regulation, the permission for free trade, and the supply-side school + trickle-down economics, which constitutes the later famous Reagan economics.
President Reagan, despite his advanced age, personally went to the media to promote the doctrine.
The Laffer Curve made its sponsor, Arthur Laff, who was also reused during the Reagan era and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Trump himself in 2019
But how many so-called economic theories are there in the United States? How did the Laffer curve become the national policy of the United States?
The reason is simple, it is fueled by Vanniskee.
Judd Vanniski, an American journalist whose father was Of Polish descent, whose mother was Scottish, whose grandfather was a Penn coal miner and a member of the Communist Party, gave him a book of Capital when he was in high school.
In 1974, Arthur and Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wanniski were having dinner at a Washington restaurant, and at the dinner table, Arthur Laffer opposed President Ford's tax increase policy, and described the concept of the Laff curve, which attracted Vanniskee, and Vanniskee immediately popularized the concept, which was the most important reason why the Laffer curve later became famous.
Along with the Laffer curve, there was also the "supply-side school", and coincidentally, Vanniskee created the "economics of the supply side".
Is the Laffer curve correct? How logically can such a simple parabola describe complex tax issues? Ever made an international joke? In fact, the Laffer curve has never been verified.
Ten thousand steps back, even if the Laffer curve is correct, but the Laffer curve is described on the left and the right side, on the left side is the need for tax increases, and on the right side is the urgent need for tax cuts, but after the neoconservatives describe this word, the policy they implement is always tax cuts.
Why? Why not a tax increase? And what reason is there to judge that you are on the right?
It's a question that no one answers, because everyone knows it: it's not economics, it's politics.
Vanniski is the holy hand of propaganda, in addition to the Laffer curve, the supply school, you are familiar with the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction", this is also his invention.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="198" > the rise of neoconservatism</h1>
The neoconservatives shined in the Reagan era, and Reagan achieved so-called success at the expense of the American working class in exchange for American respite.
In the fifties and sixties, American workers could work alone, support a wife, two children, buy a house, two cars, and a dog, but in the Reagan era, the whole of The United States was full of factories that were desperate to be sold, but in any case, the American economy improved.
At the end of the eighties, the Soviet Union was already in danger, and the precariousness of the Soviet Union also brought about the precariousness of the neoconservatives, after all, the neoconservatives were the home of the anti-Soviet uprising, the Soviet Union did not exist, where did the neoconservatives exist?
In the late eighties, the famous neoconservative Francis Foyzan published a famous article in the National Interest entitled "The End of History? set off a world-class debate.
The end of the Cold War forced the neoconservatives to face a question: the Soviet Union no longer exists, so where do the neoconservatives go? What should U.S. foreign policy do?
This question is difficult to answer, because the old conservatives in the past were inherently isolationist, the isolationism of the United States began with the establishment of north American colonies, the Puritans came to North America because they were dissatisfied with the religious policies of Europe, and President Washington repeatedly warned Americans not to get involved in the struggle of Europeans when he left office.
At this juncture of transformation, Trotsky, inscribed in the bones of the neoconservatives, finally woke up at this moment.
The elder Bush was a standard old conservative, he obtained the authorization of the United Nations when he launched the Gulf War, and he hastily closed his troops after repelling the attack on Iraq; he had the ability to expand during the Clinton period, and the economy was good, but Clinton himself was still relatively cautious, and although he had launched the war, he finally took the middle line.
William Kristall, the son of the above-mentioned godfather of neoconservativeism, Owen Kristall Jr. (hereinafter referred to as Kristall Jr.), led the neoconservatives at this time, and in 1994, Kristall Jr. became the chairman of the Republican Future Plan and became Gingrich's most important staff.
In 1994, the election of both houses of the 104th Congress, the Republican Party was a great success, successfully regaining control of the US House of Representatives and the Senate, ending the Democratic Party's control of the Congress for 40 years, the Democratic Party lost 8 seats in the Senate and 54 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans had full control of Congress for the first time since 1952, also won more than half of the governor's seats, and for the first time managed to control more than half of the state legislature seats
1994 was such an important year that the great resurgence of conservatism was even affected by Hollywood, and the best promotional film in the history of conservatism, "Forrest Gump", won 6 awards such as the Academy Award for Best Picture, the Best Actor Award, and the Best Director Award
After the victory in the initial war, the morale of the neoconservatives was greatly boosted, and The younger Kristol and another conservative cadre, Robert Kagan, jointly published "Foreign Policy Toward New Reagan" in foreign affairs, demanding that the United States continue to participate extensively in international affairs, raise the public's understanding of the particularity and superiority of American values, enhance its sense of responsibility for "the moral and political leadership responsibility entrusted to them by history", and raise the defense budget on a large scale.
At the same time, he put forward the "US New World Plan" and wrote "Current Dangers," "Rebuilding The National Defense of the United States," "The Bush Doctrine," and "National Defense and the Strategy of Winning Two Wars at the Same Time." Many of these ideas were widely circulated in China.
Neoconservatism had lost its market at this time, but a historical opportunity fell on them
I sometimes wonder, what would have happened to the world without 911?
Without 9/11, would China still be suppressed? Or will we lose our historic opportunity?
The waste theory of "one country builds socialism" cannot cultivate a positive spirit of international class solidarity. And only a strong class will can lay a good foundation for revolutionary military intervention and make similar actions worthwhile. On the question of intervention – as in other aspects of its own policy – Moscow simply ignores the ideology and feelings of the international working class. As a result, its recent diplomatic "achievements" irredeemly scandalized the Soviet Union and permeated the world proletarians with an extreme arrogance.
----------- Trotsky, "Revisiting the Class Character of the USSR," October 18, 1939
"Neoconservatives argue that the goals of U.S. foreign policy must go beyond narrow, literal 'national security.'" This goal should be the national interest of world hegemony, because it is defined by a sense of the fate of the country rather than by a myopic national security. ”
----------- 1983, Owen Christor
To some extent, the world revolution and the building of socialism in one country are not so different from the use of force to promote the American system and isolationism, and the Soviet Union's attempts to carry out socialist transformation in the experimental field of Afghanistan were unsuccessful, and the capitalist transformation of the United States in the experimental field of Afghanistan was also unsuccessful.
Highlighting the "Manifest Destiny of the United States" and "the big brother of the Soviet Union" is actually no different, how big is the difference between "the interests of the socialist family are supreme sovereignty, while the sovereignty of the socialist countries is limited" and "only those responsible countries can enjoy absolute sovereignty, and rogue countries cannot enjoy absolute sovereignty"?
Very interesting of this is James Burnham, who in 1933 was involved in the formation of the American Workers' Party, in 1934 James Burnham supported the party's merger with the Communist Union of america, in 1935 he allied with the party's Trotskyists, and most interestingly, in 1935 he became friends with Trotsky.
As a result of the development of the atomic bomb by the United States, in 1947 he published "The Struggle for the World", which he wrote
"We recognize that the world initiated and led by the United States will be a world empire. In this imperial alliance, the United States, which has a monopoly on atomic weapons, will have decisive material power in all other parts of the world. In world politics, that is, there will be no balance of power."
It's very Trotsky.
Most amazingly, his book Suicide in the West actually won the Reagan administration's "Presidential Freedom Medal."
As early as May 20, 2003, the New York Spanish newspaper El Diario/La Prensa published the newspaper's political editor Perranzie's "From Permanent Revolution to Constant Conquest", which pointed out that the so-called neoconservatives in the Bush administration were all Trotskyites, including Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfwitz, and Irving Kristol, director of the Pearl Institute for American Enterprise, chairman of the National Policy Committee. Ulmuser, Director of the Middle East Research Office, etc.
The article attacked these people for turning Trotsky's "theory of continuous revolution" into a "theory of constant conquest" and putting it into action after gaining power now, calling it the theory of "continuous expansion," declaring that "what is good for the United States is good for the world, and that "the United States has the right to attack any country as long as it finds any danger."
These Trotskyists did not get up to answer, but they angered the Fourth International, whose founder was Trotsky, and his disrespect for Trotsky would naturally provoke the anger of the Fourth International, so he wrote the article "The Historical Roots of Neoconservatism: Answering the Defamatory Attack on Trotskyism.", after all, the Fourth International still appeared in the image of criticizing US imperialism, and if the Fourth International, which claimed to be anti-imperialist, was actually in the same door as the right-wing elements of US imperialism, the Fourth International would naturally be disgraced.
If a country builds socialism, it belongs to the Slovaks, then the isolation policy of classical conservatism belongs to the Slovaks.
The permanent revolution belongs to the Trotskyists, and the constant conquest is that neoconservatism belongs to the Trotskyists.
The US imperialists are the Soviet revisionists, and the Soviet revisionists are the US imperialists.
Humans are a very strange animal, aren't they?
If you want a man to hate you completely, then give him a grace that is difficult to repay.
The fiercest enemies are precisely those who have shared your faith before.
Isn't that also our history?
Or is it because we are deeply hostile to American neoconservativeism today because of the anti-Trotskyists before us?
Ponder the horror.